MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390269869 · doi:10.1177/19417381231217449

Timing of Outcomes and Expectations After Knee Surgery in the US Military: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4390269869 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyContext (archaeology)Data extractionGrading (engineering)MEDLINECohortCohort studyEvidence-based medicineSurgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Knee injury and subsequent surgery are widespread in the military setting. Associations between knee surgery and expected outcomes over time have not been consolidated and characterized systematically by procedure type across the body of literature, and the temporal expectations of these outcomes remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To summarize common postoperative follow-up times and associated outcomes that determine clinical or surgical failure in US service members after elective knee surgery. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted with 3 bibliographic databases of published research reports from 2010 through 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in US military service members undergoing elective knee surgery, with a minimum of 1-year follow-up, and reporting on a functional/occupational outcome were included. Three reviewers screened all abstracts and full-text articles to determine eligibility. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of longitudinal cohort studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2a. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted data included military demographics, surgical procedure variables, surveillance period, and outcome measures. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to determine study quality and risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies (mean follow-up time of 40.7 months) met the inclusion criteria. For cruciate ligament repair, approximately one-third of patients required a second surgery or were medically separated from military service by 2 years from surgery; 100% were reinjured by 4 years, and 85% sustained a new injury within 5 years of surgery. For meniscal repair, nearly one-third of patients were medically separated, and half were placed on activity restrictions within 3 years of surgery. For articular cartilage repair, within 5 years, 39% of patients required a second surgery, 30% were placed on activity restrictions, and 36% were medically separated. For patellar repair, 37% of patients were medically separated and over half were placed on activity restrictions within 5 years. CONCLUSION: Common knee surgeries can have long-term implications for military careers that may not become apparent with shorter follow-up periods (<2 years). When longer surveillance periods are used (eg, up to 5 years), additional surgical procedures are more common and the likelihood of being injured or medically separated from military service is higher.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it